NationStates Jolt Archive

In a world filled with enemies of freedom, why do we restrict our weapons list when we could regulate it instead. I am hereby seeking a repeal on the Resolution #40 Banning the Use of Landmines. I have laid out new guidelines which could be implemented in place of the total ban. Such as military guards overseeing the minefield, or using GPS tracking systems on newer mines. Neither of these guidelines would make the mine obsolete, but would prevent the loss of civilian life.

One should see not just the often broadcast negative side of mines, but the positive side. The one that can protect borders and soldier's lives.

...At the expense of civilians' lives?

I oppose this resolution wholeheartedly but maybe you should write out the details of what you want the resolution to do.

OOC:Since I feel nice, and I'm just bumming around at work...Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #40
Proposed by: Zeracs

Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UN Resolution #40 in regards to land mines is too strong in its wording, and places its member nations at a disadvantage when it comes to Warfare.

It is clearly not good sound military judgment to restrict oneself unnecessarily in the face of an enemy. Zeracs hereby requests that UN resolution #40 be modified to allow member nations to use land mines as long as they follow strict guidelines to include.

1) A detailed map of the location of every implaced mine.

2) Government sponsored announcements allowing the civilian population plenty of time to leave the endangered areas, and enough warning to enter into them.

3) All minefields are to be monitored by a continued military presence to prevent civilian causalities.

4) Every effort made to bring mine technology into the future using GPS tracking systems on each individual mine.

The mine when used properly can be an effective military tool used to save lives by limiting a soldier's exposure to enemy forces.

Approvals: 12 (Extremation, Project Quantum Leap, Norwedenland, Avda, Sovietskey, Science and faith, WZ Forums, Invicible Burninator, Nag Ehgoeg, Compulsoria, Disillusioned Peoples, Hisnot3)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 98 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Dec 30 2007I'm opposed.

Completely as a side issue, could GPS be considered a RL reference? Fundamentally it's an American technology, whilst the Europeans and Russians have technologies of their own in development. The correct phrase is apparently Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). You can thank Putin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7159490.stm) for this rambling.

The only people who would place civilian lives are risk would be nonmember nations who are already using mines. Through careful planning it is possible to in place mines with there being no more risk to civilians than any other form of border or military defenses. Where as it would save the lives of the men and women of the Armed Forces who would be charged with protecting the area proper land mines would protect.

Everyone is quick to point out the risk to civilian lives, but simple stating that lives at risk is not a reason to uphold legislation. If properly implemented the argument of risk can hold no more water than if it were used to ban all military activity together.

The only people who would place civilian lives are risk would be nonmember nations who are already using mines. Through careful planning it is possible to in place mines with there being no more risk to civilians than any other form of border or military defenses.We can't do anything about nonmember nations, so that's not really a valid point. As a result you cannot really compare the defense policy of nonmember states with member states. I'd like to think just because nonmember nations use landmines does not mean we have to sink to their level and the UN has an appreciation that some values are worth compromising certain things for, such as defense.

Yes, you are trying to soften the blow with the implementation of technology, but my initial observation is that a nation that has to rely upon mines for defense is unlikely to have the technology available to track their mines in the first place. If you really want to place mines, then you can always become a non-member (not a helpful answer, I know, but a true answer nonetheless).

I do have one thought for a proposal semi-related to this proposal - I don't think there is any legislation regarding the deployment of naval mines in international waters - that's likely to get more support, as the UN seems to love legislation dealing with the sea.

Nice to know I'm gone for a few months and not really anything's changed.

I didn't realize it was time to dredge up the landmine argument yet. I agree that if you're resorting to landmines you probably aren't the most advanced nation in the world.

There are much more efficent anti-personel wepons out there. Which fall within UN guidelines and don't put civilians in danger.

OOC: It's worth noting that whatever the merits of your argument, your repeal is illegal for multiple reasons: well worth a look (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Also, and I'm not raising this out of pride, I really think you should look at this existing resolution: UN Demining Survey (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=149).

"One thing I like to have made clear, how many counties are there in the NSUN?

As long as you are not a county, you are allowed to use mines. NSUN Counties are known for being inhumane killers, violating international laws, and harming babies, but as long as you are not a county, we can be certain that you are treated civilians well, in which case, you can follow the Demining Survey and use landmines."
---Dr. Bob.

(OOC: If you want to use weapons, please read the resolutions, and find loopholes, and use them. You might want to check to make sure the loopholes are valid though.

I think my nation would back a repeal of this ban...so that it can be replaced with something stronger.)

This is ridiculous. We outlawed land mines for a reason: they kill civilians. There is no way to insure civilians WON'T be killed with your plan. Landmines are cruel. If you want to blow someone up, use your damned warplanes.

Completely as a side issue, could GPS be considered a RL reference?"Global Positioning System"? No. That's a generic thing.

Yeah. But it's a repeal. You can't lay out guidelines for what to do with Landmines in a repeal.

This is ridiculous. We outlawed land mines for a reason: they kill civilians. There is no way to insure civilians WON'T be killed with your plan. Landmines are cruel. If you want to blow someone up, use your damned warplanes.

That's fine if you're a rich "first-world" nation that HAS warplanes. Not all of us have those resources.

I strongly oppose any proposal that will result in the hurting of civilians. This proposal will do exactly that.

At this point I'm defying anyone to tell me why they should remain banned besides simple stating "They hurt civilians". I'm not advocating every nation just drop all the landmines they want. I am saying that the UN shouldn't ban nations willing to make smart intelligent decisions that might not have the funding for super expensive military projects.

After all, why shouldn't my beautiful nation be allowed to save money through smart mines? Especially, since my nation's legislation would put it to our welfare or education program which helps these civilians everyone is screaming about.

Erm, I'm hardly an expert, but I not entirely sure how a welfare program is going to stop people being killed by landmines.

~ Hari Desana

An idea of giving the location of every single mine is ridiculous. The problem is that in third would countries no one knows where exactly the mines are.

The expense of cleaning all (or close to all) of the mines up will have to be done by richer nations.

This is a nice humanitarian idea but it also ignores the point that freedom fighters, terrorists or just people that plainly dont give a dam about there own people could easily design a crude but effective land mind with the help of a second year engineering student such as myself. Due to not wanting such information more readily avaliable then to crazy people such as myself please do not ask for details.

I think I would only support such an idea if the territory of mine clearance is supported by a government that has no future plans to develope further mines.

Efforts in regions that plan to develop more mines are a waste.

Furthermore about the GPS idea. From a military point of view this is stupid. Why dont you have golf flags sticking out of every mine so the enemy can walk around them. What military chief would want to place a signal on a hidden weapon?

"Global Positioning System"? No. That's a generic thing.The reason I asked is because GPS is an American application of the technology. The generic term is GNSS for the technology.

An idea of giving the location of every single mine is ridiculous. The problem is that in third would countries no one knows where exactly the mines are.

The expense of cleaning all (or close to all) of the mines up will have to be done by richer nations.

This is a nice humanitarian idea but it also ignores the point that freedom fighters, terrorists or just people that plainly don't give a dam about there own people could easily design a crude but effective land mind with the help of a second year engineering student such as myself. Due to not wanting such information more readily available then to crazy people such as myself please do not ask for details.

I think I would only support such an idea if the territory of mine clearance is supported by a government that has no future plans to develope further mines.

Efforts in regions that plan to develop more mines are a waste.

Furthermore about the GPS idea. From a military point of view this is stupid. Why don't you have golf flags sticking out of every mine so the enemy can walk around them. What military chief would want to place a signal on a hidden weapon?

To your first point, Mine technology already exists and continues to exist. Rogue nations, amateurs, and freedom fighters still use the tech whether we say they can or not. Part of my argument is about how we limit ourselves in the face of an enemy and thats just not plain smart.

As to your point about GPS location of the mines. Knowing where the mines are doesn't take them out of the ground. If every mined position is watched by the military than it still acts as a border fence/border wall. Causing an enemy probelms or slowing the down enough for the military to react to them in other ways.

Do I have to say this again or something?


REPEALS can only give arguement for a REPEAL of the Resolution and NOT give new LEGISLATION reguaring the matter at hand.

So... it boils down to "they use it, so we should"? What happened to proving you were better than your opponent?

~ Hari Desana

So... it boils down to "they use it, so we should"? What happened to proving you were better than your opponent?

~ Hari Desana

What better way to prove one's superiority than by standing triumphantly over their lifeless corpse?

Commodore Cidolphas Kramer
Military Adviser to the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

So... it boils down to "they use it, so we should"? What happened to proving you were better than your opponent?

~ Hari Desana

No, thats not what it boils down too. What it boils down to is not restricting member nations in such a manner that they are forced to spend more money on their defense budget than was nessesscary.

An idea of giving the location of every single mine is ridiculous.

That's just dumb. According to UN resolutions, one must give the location of every single mine.

And I think that's a great idea. If we know where the minefields are, civilans won't go there. No civilan deaths whatsoever. Military units will be forced to go through the minefiled and suffer deaths, or avoid the minefields, and such redirection is good.

---Sergant Tom,
Police Officer of SilentScope003

Do I have to say this again or something?


REPEALS can only give argument for a REPEAL of the Resolution and NOT give new LEGISLATION reguaring the matter at hand.

All I gave was an argument, citing several examples of how the resolution is to STRONG in wording. The reason you keep having to repeat yourself is because you're not talking about the subject matter at hand and since you yourself say I can give an argument I stand by the argument I gave.

The United Nations resolution to ban landmines needs to be repealed. The usage of landmines is an important combat tactic that many nations use to defend their sovereignty, and to save thousands of soldiers’ lives. The United Nations shouldn’t be involved in dictating the combat tactics of those nations or any nation.
Not all our nations are wealthy enough to have billion dollar air planes in the sky and ten billion dollar prototypes in the hanger , to be used in the service of defending our people. For the nations I refer to landmines are there hope. They tell them that the battles of justice and righteousness in defense of one’s homeland can be fought with low-tech solutions in the hands of brave individuals, and intelligent and responsible commanders.
Often times we treat the militaries of nation’s as an evil organization, or act with complete disregard for them. The militaries of these nations are comprised of citizens who have answered the hire call to defend their family, to defend their friends, to defend their ideals, to defend their principals and to defend the foundations of their society and their right to declare themselves free from any yoke of slavery or oppression. And for many of these citizen soldiers the means that their country provides for them are limited. And so they scarifies certain areas of their country by responsibly charting them with landmines, in order to protect the rest of the country. And they none the less ready themselves to answer the call, and have relied on the wisdom and experience of their commanders and the commanders’ combat tactics. And yet the United Nations dictates to these commanders that they cannot rely on integral battlefield solutions, the United Nations takes these citizen soldiers and throws them in the midst of open conflict often times in places with no cover –where land mines are used the most, and are told to go and defend their peoples. The United Nations does all this in the comfort of their buildings and with the ease of the ballot miles away from the battlefields that defend freedom.
The United Nations job is to be a promoter. Promote good health, promote the welfare of the people of the world, promote life, promote righteousness, and promote hope. Instead caught in the frenzy to correct the actions of evil people, we go beyond our promoting, and take the rule of the commander. And yet we don’t command. We’re not there when the enemy is knocking at the door , we’re not there when every last use of reason says you’ve lost yet and you need someone brave to help you make it through the next out, we’re not there when a country is contemplating burning its sacred homelands in order to defend its honor and hopefully its future. We’re not there, and we shouldn’t act like we’re there, we can’t dictate battlefield tactics! I know its heart wrenching to see a child missing a limb, and we all want to get caught in this frenzy to help him, but if we don’t temper ourselves we will and I believe in this case have made a mistake that have cost many more lives.
I’m all for going back to the traditional roots and promoting the proper use of mines to defend the home land. I’m all for empowering nations with knowledge of safety recommendations, I wont raise a question to resolutions that seek to decrease the irresponsible proliferation of land mines, and I will support every single resolution where the United Nation is in a position of promoting such things. And for that to happen today I take a stand against this resolution, repeal it, lets work together and do something more dynamic with more than just good intentions as substance but also good logic reason and execution.

The United Nations resolution to ban landmines needs to be repealed. The usage of landmines is an important combat tactic that many nations use to defend their sovereignty, and to save thousands of soldiers’ lives. The United Nations shouldn’t be involved in dictating the combat tactics of those nations or any nation.


Not all our nations are wealthy enough to have billion dollar air planes in the sky and ten billion dollar prototypes in the hanger , to be used in the service of defending our people. For the nations I refer to landmines are there hope. They tell their people that the battles of justice and righteousness in defense of one’s homeland can be fought with low-tech solutions in the hands of brave individuals, and intelligent and responsible commanders.

Often times we treat the militaries of nation’s as an evil organization, or act with complete disregard for them. The militaries of these nations are comprised of citizens who have answered the hire call to defend their family, to defend their friends, to defend their ideals, to defend their principals and to defend the foundations of their society and their right to declare themselves free from any yoke of slavery or oppression. And for many of these citizen soldiers the means that their country provides for them are limited. And so they sacrifice certain areas of their country by responsibly charting them with landmines, in order to protect the rest of the country. And they none the less ready themselves to answer the call, and have relied on the wisdom and experience of their commanders and the commanders’ combat tactics. And yet the United Nations dictates to these commanders that they cannot rely on integral battlefield solutions, the United Nations takes these citizen soldiers and throws them in the midst of open conflict often times in places with no cover –where land mines are used the most, and are told to go and defend their peoples. The United Nations does all this in the comfort of their buildings and with the ease of the ballot miles away from the battlefields that defend freedom.

The United Nations job is to be a promoter. Promote good health, promote the welfare of the people of the world, promote life, promote righteousness, and promote hope. Instead caught in the frenzy to correct the actions of evil people, we go beyond our promoting, and take the role of the commander. And yet we don’t command. We’re not there when the enemy is knocking at the door , we’re not there when every last use of reason says you’ve lost the fight and you need someone brave to hold you together, we’re not there when a country is contemplating burning its sacred homelands in order to defend its honor and hopefully its future. We’re not there, and we shouldn’t act like we’re there, we can’t dictate battlefield tactics! I know its heart wrenching to see a child missing a limb, and we all want to get caught in this frenzy to help him, but if we don’t temper ourselves we will, and I believe we have, in this case- made a mistake that have cost many more lives than we could hope to save.

I’m all for going back to the traditional roots and- promoting- the proper use of mines to defend the home land. I’m all for empowering nations with knowledge of safety recommendations, I wont raise a question to resolutions that seek to decrease the irresponsible proliferation of land mines, and I will support every single resolution where the United Nation is in a position of promoting such things. And for that to happen today I take a stand against this resolution, repeal it; lets work together and do something more dynamic, with more than just good intentions as substance, but also good logic ,reason and execution.

The reason I asked is because GPS is an American application of the technology. The generic term is GNSS for the technology."Global Positioning System" is just as generic a descriptor as "Global Navigation Satellite System". If they talked about using a "TomTom", then you'd have a real world violation.

It's like complaining about a Proposal using the word "mile" because that's an "American application" of measurement.

All I gave was an argument, citing several examples of how the resolution is to STRONG in wording. The reason you keep having to repeat yourself is because you're not talking about the subject matter at hand and since you yourself say I can give an argument I stand by the argument I gave.

Really?

It is clearly not good sound military judgment to restrict oneself unnecessarily in the face of an enemy. Zeracs hereby requests that UN resolution #40 be modified to allow member nations to use land mines as long as they follow strict guidelines to include.

1) A detailed map of the location of every implaced mine.

2) Government sponsored announcements allowing the civilian population plenty of time to leave the endangered areas, and enough warning to enter into them.

3) All minefields are to be monitored by a continued military presence to prevent civilian causalities.

4) Every effort made to bring mine technology into the future using GPS tracking systems on each individual mine.

As your own proposal states, this section right here is an attempt to push new legislation in a repeal. Also the part that says "UN resolution #40 be modified" also pritty much states that the quoted section would be an amendment to the Resolution, which is also a no no.

Not all our nations are wealthy enough to have billion dollar air planes in the sky and ten billion dollar prototypes in the hanger , to be used in the service of defending our people.

If they weren't interested it seemingly land-mining their ENTIRE boarder they might have some money to spend on aircraft.

My country while it does own billion dollar aircraft, as well as several other more effective ways of stopping invaders, is also not very interested in paying the costs, both monetarily nor man-power wise to post soldiers who's only purpose would be to say "Don't Go There." near every mine field.

Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

(OOC: Wait, does anyone actually reads the resolution in questions?

All nations are advised that landmines are cruel and unnecessary devices to civilian populations of nations around the world. These weapons indiscriminately maim and kill civilian targets. When conflicts end, landmines pose a serious threat to farming and render large portions of land unuseable. The expense and difficulty of removing landmines after hostilities cease means that farmland and other areas might never be useful to populations for any enterprise. For this reason the immediate banning of the use of landmines in conflicts carried out by UN counties is called for.

It only bans landmines for UN counties in warfare. You can use it in peace. You can use it if you are not a "county", not a country. And if you are a 'wanker', you can just state it merely CALLS for said banning, it does not actually bans anything at all, merely suggests it. Like that the UN 'merely' endorses the UBR.

The resolution is not strong at all. It's weak. Utterly weak. The real resolution you need to worry about is the UN Demining Survey, which regulates mine usage, and forces all UN countries who uses mines to alert everyone, "HEY GUYS! THERE ARE MINES HERE, AVOID THEM!" You know, sooner or later, someone has to repeal that useless resolution.)

If they weren't interested it seemingly land-mining their ENTIRE boarder they might have some money to spend on aircraft.

My country while it does own billion dollar aircraft, as well as several other more effective ways of stopping invaders, is also not very interested in paying the costs, both monetarily nor man-power wise to post soldiers who's only purpose would be to say "Don't Go There." near every mine field.

Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

Sir you cannot tell me that land mines are more expensive that high tech fighter air craft.

Land mines can be anything from buried artillery shells with the primer on top, they can be a sack of gun powder with an ignition .
Land mines are mostly placed in areas that are hard to defend . For example wide open terrain where no one wants to get pinned down under fire with no cover. there no need to throw them all over the country. We shouldn't assume that because we will lift the ban on land mines a government is going is going to go place the land mines on every playground.

Sir you cannot tell me that land mines are more expensive that high tech fighter air craft.

Land mines can be anything from buried artillery shells with the primer on top, they can be a sack of gun powder with an ignition .
Land mines are mostly placed in areas that are hard to defend . For example wide open terrain where no one wants to get pinned down under fire with no cover. there no need to throw them all over the country. We shouldn't assume that because we will lift the ban on land mines a government is going is going to go place the land mines on every playground.

Of course I'm not saying that land mines are more expensive than aircraft! What I'm saying is since they are banned and should stay banned maybe you could look to moving your money to something that isn't.

I know all too well what land mines are and what they can be made of, I've learned many different ways to kill civilians in my day, however I've been smart enough and humane enough not to use them.

Do I assume that governments are apt to go out there and landmine playgrounds of course not but put that playground in a theater of operations, and it might make sense tactically to do it, then what is left after the armies are gone... a minefield. The land mine ban isn't totally in effect to stop them from use during warfare.. it's there to keep them from being left over...

Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

Of course I'm not saying that land mines are more expensive than aircraft! What I'm saying is since they are banned and should stay banned maybe you could look to moving your money to something that isn't.

I know all too well what land mines are and what they can be made of, I've learned many different ways to kill civilians in my day, however I've been smart enough and humane enough not to use them.

Do I assume that governments are apt to go out there and landmine playgrounds of course not but put that playground in a theater of operations, and it might make sense tactically to do it, then what is left after the armies are gone... a minefield. The land mine ban isn't totally in effect to stop them from use during warfare.. it's there to keep them from being left over...

Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

It shouldn't be the job of the UN to be making tactical decisions such as preventing the use of land mines of a country. If something makes tactical sense than it is up the battlefield commanders to make the decision.

If that playground is mined responsibly all the mans can be mapped out. And even then it can be declared off limits. It's up to the leaders of that country to decide if they a play ground is worth the security of the country, and the decision to employ land makes can always be made responsibly.

And the role of the UN should be to promote those responsible decisions and responsible means to carry those decisions out.

It shouldn't be the job of the UN to be making tactical decisions such as preventing the use of land mines of a country. If something makes tactical sense than it is up the battlefield commanders to make the decision.

If that playground is mined responsibly all the mans can be mapped out. And even then it can be declared off limits. It's up to the leaders of that country to decide if they a play ground is worth the security of the country, and the decision to employ land makes can always be made responsibly.

And the role of the UN should be to promote those responsible decisions and responsible means to carry those decisions out.

Exactly!!!

It only bans landmines for UN counties in warfare. You can use it in peace. You can use it if you are not a "county", not a country. And if you are a 'wanker', you can just state it merely CALLS for said banning, it does not actually bans anything at all, merely suggests it.

Finally someone sees the light! This is the real reason to repeal the land mine ban. Not because nations want to be able to use land mines and can't, it's because truthfully the land mine ban doesn't do jack. So all you people who want land mines banned should actually be supporting the repeal of this completely ineffective resolution so you can then submit something that might actually prevent UN members from using land mines.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Representative (pro tem)

I think dumb land mines should be banned. However smart landmines like the claymore in command mode should be allowed or ones with timers should be allowed.

It shouldn't be the job of the UN to be making tactical decisions such as preventing the use of land mines of a country. If something makes tactical sense than it is up the battlefield commanders to make the decision.

If that playground is mined responsibly all the mans can be mapped out. And even then it can be declared off limits. It's up to the leaders of that country to decide if they a play ground is worth the security of the country, and the decision to employ land makes can always be made responsibly.

And the role of the UN should be to promote those responsible decisions and responsible means to carry those decisions out.


I agree that a mine field can be mapped out responsibly during the conflict, and when the conflict is over, who is removing these responsibly mapped mines? At who's costs? Will nations cry poor when it comes to cleaning up their toys from the playground?

Since when is it a responsible decision to leave unexploded ordinance in the way of civilians?


Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

I agree that a mine field can be mapped out responsibly during the conflict, and when the conflict is over, who is removing these responsibly mapped mines? At who's costs? Will nations cry poor when it comes to cleaning up their toys from the playground?

I suggest that you read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737945&postcount=151), especially clause #3, #5 & onwards...

I suggest that you read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737945&postcount=151), especially clause #3, #5 & onwards...

I apologize to the representative from Sir Edmund, of course I've read and understand the UNDS. We stand at the ready with Demining vehicles to help anyone who asks. I misspoke you'll forgive me for my military as opposed to diplomatic way. I was here checking on our security detail when Nigel told me of this debate.

However we also feel as though a strict ban of the use of mines should stay in place. I'd like to not put any of my troops or armor in harms way if I can avoid it.

Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

I apologize to the representative from Sir Edmund, of course I've read and understand the UNDS. We stand at the ready with Demining vehicles to help anyone who asks. I misspoke you'll forgive me for my military as opposed to diplomatic way. I was here checking on our security detail when Nigel told me of this debate.

However we also feel as though a strict ban of the use of mines should stay in place. I'd like to not put any of my troops or armor in harms way if I can avoid it.

Gen5 Percy Fitz-Wallace
Overall Commander
United States of Philimbesi Armed Forces.

Well if you (hypothetically) plan to invade my country I'd like to make sure your troops and armor stay in harms way. Land mines aren't there to protect the opposing equipment they are there to blow them up!

Percy breaths a long sigh of despair, diplomats always bring headaches

I've fought several wars, I'm well versed in what the enemies land mines are intended to do.

What I meant was in accordance with the UNDS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10737945&postcount=151) which... you should read it sometime... it's a smashing good read. My country and your's are pledged to help remove mines that are in place, both in our countries and in any other countries who ask for our help.

Now, if land mines remain banned, in UN countries... we won't have to remove them now will we? There for our mine-removal vehicles and ordinance specialists can stay at the base with their feet up.

"And again, only UN counties cannot use landmines. Are any of you counties? No? Then you are allowed to use landmines. UNDS is still useful."
--Dr. Bob

(OOC: Plus, the anti-landmine movement is against anti-personell weaponry, not against all forms of mines.)

Besides, during a war you can resign from the UN, use mines to your heart's content and then after winning the war, you re-enter the UN... matter solved! Hooah! And its snazzy to stockpile the mines before the actual war too!

I cannot and will not tolerant UN encroaching in battlefield tactics, it is not and has not and should not be it's place. I want to promote world improvement too, but I don't want to expose my country to a security risk because of it. I want to be right up there with you guys in promoting a better world , but the fact is that I can't be right up there with you guys in everything. We can't have a uniform military becuase our economies and infrastructure are different. Yours allows you to employ high tech alternatives. Mine's allows me only to employ low-tech equipment.So because we are different nations with different abilities we have different security levels and different tactics to address that. The UN can't be seeking to limit anything that can be employed responsibly for the defense of freedom and the same principals that it seeks to protect.

Erm, I'm hardly an expert, but I not entirely sure how a welfare program is going to stop people being killed by landmines.

~ Hari DesanaYou spend to buy books or feed poor or clothe and shelter them then don't have funds for mines... welfare systems that educate and help people care for them drain funds from other things... that kill them.

We could sit here for hours, days.... years debating the pros and cons of using land mines. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether we leave resolution #40 in place as is or we repel it, then write a new proposal with stronger and better worded banning of land mines if that is our intent.

Personally I think the proposal Repeal of Landmines Ban could have given stronger and more defined reasons why resolution #40 should be repealed. But I favor it none the less.

Egy Nemzet UN delegate of TGF endorses this proposal.

We could sit here for hours, days.... years debating the pros and cons of using land mines. That is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether we leave resolution #40 in place as is or we repel it, then write a new proposal with stronger and better worded banning of land mines if that is our intent.

Personally I think the proposal Repeal of Landmines Ban could have given stronger and more defined reasons why resolution #40 should be repealed. But I favor it none the less.

Egy Nemzet UN delegate of TGF endorses this proposal.

I agree with you completely.

Zeracs is voting to repeal Resolution #40. We can discuss what to replace it with after it is repealed. For the time being I think we can all agree that the wording makes it ineffective no matter what side of the fence you're on.

Yeah. But i'm not the only one who saw the big big flaw in this proposal...

*SNIP*
Meanwhile, a hit at a favorite target of proposal writers...
Repeal "Banning the use of Landmines"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #40
Proposed by: Zeracs

Description: UN Resolution #40: Banning the use of Landmines (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: UN Resolution #40 in regards to land mines is too strong in its wording, and places its member nations at a disadvantage when it comes to Warfare.

It is clearly not good sound military judgment to restrict oneself unnecessarily in the face of an enemy. Zeracs hereby requests that UN resolution #40 be modified to allow member nations to use land mines as long as they follow strict guidelines to include.

1) A detailed map of the location of every implaced mine.

2) Government sponsored announcements allowing the civilian population plenty of time to leave the endangered areas, and enough warning to enter into them.

3) All minefields are to be monitored by a continued military presence to prevent civilian causalities.

4) Every effort made to bring mine technology into the future using GPS tracking systems on each individual mine.


The mine when used properly can be an effective military tool used to save lives by limiting a soldier's exposure to enemy forces.

Approvals: 5 (Extremation, Project Quantum Leap, Norwedenland, Avda, Sovietskey)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 105 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Dec 30 2007
...is also illegal, for branding and attempting to introduce new legislation.

Yeah. But i'm not the only one who saw the big big flaw in this proposal...

You do realize that the proposal format was fixed days/ almost a week ago right?

Given that you have repeatedly failed to post any version of this proposal in this thread, we expect a resounding "No" in response to that question.